|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture Geneva, 21 Apr (D. Ravi Kanth) – Under the pretext of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the resulting food crisis, some powerful members including the European Union have apparently suggested the need to “freeze” any agricultural outcomes at the World Trade Organization’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), tentatively scheduled to take place in Geneva on 12-15 June. In an alleged attempt to deny a decision on the longstanding mandated issue of the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security purposes in developing and least-developed countries, the EU and a few other developed countries have apparently mooted the idea of a “freeze” on agricultural outcomes at MC12, said several participants, who preferred not to be quoted. At a small-group meeting convened by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations on 20 April, the EU and a few other developed countries apparently floated the idea of “freezing” the agricultural outcomes at MC12, said participants, preferring anonymity. The participants in the small-group meeting included the United States, the EU, Canada, Japan, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brazil, Cameroon and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, and four new entrants to the small group – Uruguay, Paraguay, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. According to participants who spoke to the SUNS, the chair, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta of Costa Rica (which is a member of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries), scheduled the meeting to discuss the issue of the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security. In a TWN briefing paper issued on 14 April, the authors – Ms Kinda Mohamadieh and Ms Ranja Sengupta – argued that “a permanent solution on public stockholding (PSH) – which asks for a waiver on subsidies provided to poor farmers in developing countries via price support on procurement of stocks for public food programs – has been languishing since 2013.” The authors pointed out that “in spite of a mandated and missed deadline for an outcome by 2017 (when the US blocked the permanent solution at the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina), and two concrete proposals submitted by the African Group (JOB/AG/205) and the Group of 33 (JOB/AG/214), the chair proposed yet another postponement of a decision on PSH, this time to the 13th Ministerial Conference, in her report (TN/AG/50) to the WTO’s Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 23 November 2021.” The chair, who has been repeatedly criticized for her alleged “biases” in favour of the Cairns Group, as well as allegedly turning on its head the mandate on PSH, has maintained in her report (TN/AG/50) to the TNC that her “assessment that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a permanent solution at MC12 was not shared by some developing country Members, who insisted that I forward this issue to Ministers for their consideration and decision.” She said that “several Members strongly objected to this proposed course of action, notably due to the lack of detailed technical work on elements for a permanent solution and the absence of parallel progress on domestic support.” Ambassador Peralta, who has been accused of allegedly tilting her report in favour of the Cairns Group of countries, maintained that “consequently, given the stalemate, my recommendation to Ministers is for the adoption of a work programme with a view to agreeing on a permanent solution by MC13.” India and several other countries rejected the chair’s report in various meetings, saying that it is “imbalanced” and “rigged” against the interests of the developing countries. At the small-group meeting on 20 April, India apparently said that the chair’s draft text (in TN/AG/50) is not balanced and that it cannot be the basis for any negotiations on PSH, said participants, who preferred not to be quoted. RESPONSES ON PSH At the small-group meeting, many developing countries pressed for the constructive resolution of the issue of the mandated permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security before MC12. At an earlier “green room” meeting convened by the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala last week, India warned that without a decision on the permanent solution for PSH programs, it will not accept any other outcome for MC12, said people familiar with the development. At the small-group meeting on 20 April, the proponents of the permanent solution for PSH programs such as the African Group of countries led by Cameroon and Nigeria, Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 coalition, India, and several other countries said they are ready to work constructively with the non-proponents to resolve the differences on this issue. China apparently said that the PSH issue has to be treated in accordance with domestic considerations rather than linking it with trade, implying that developing countries need to be allowed to use the mechanism as they deem fit according to their domestic considerations, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. The African Group and the G-33 coalition are expected to issue a consolidated proposal soon on the PSH issue, as is being demanded by the non-proponents, said people familiar with the development. In their proposal tabled on 14 April, the least-developed countries (LDCs) called for a permanent solution for PSH programs, arguing that the permanent solution should replace the interim “peace clause”, with a decision that PSH programs fulfilling certain conditions should not be included in the AMS calculation. CONTINUED “DIVERSIONARY” TACTICS At the small-group meeting, in response to the demand from the developing countries on PSH, the United States along with several Cairns Group members, and the European Union continued to adopt “diversionary” tactics on the PSH issue, SUNS has learned. The new US trade envoy Ambassador Maria Pagan appears to have said that more technical work needs to be done on the PSH issue. Ambassador Pagan apparently said that she shares the concerns raised by some members over the PSH issue. The US seems to have emphasized the importance of an agreement on enhanced transparency provisions, said people familiar with the discussions. The European Union said it is not envisaging any outcome on the PSH issue, suggesting that only the issue of transparency could be agreed at MC12. Significantly, Uruguay and Paraguay, the new members of the small-group, as well as Brazil seem to have adopted a rather obdurate position against the PSH issue, saying that they will not agree to any outcome on this issue at MC12, said people familiar with the development. The UK, another new member of the small-group, proposed a five-point approach to the PSH issue, which seems to be designed at stymieing any outcome on the issue, said participants who asked not to be quoted. DIVISIONS OVER THE CHAIR’S TEXT At the small-group meeting on 20 April, sharp differences came into the open again on the draft text issued by the chair Ambassador Peralta from Costa Rica. India, which has consistently opposed the chair’s text, apparently said that the draft text (TN/AG/50 issued on 23 November 2021), cannot be the basis for making any progress. The chair’s revised draft text has been severely criticized by the developing countries and the LDCs in various meetings on grounds that it has allegedly turned the previous Doha ministerial mandates on agriculture on their head, particularly the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security for MC12, said people familiar with the development. India has repeatedly said that the chair’s draft text is “imbalanced” and cannot be the basis for further discussions, a criticism that was also echoed by the African Group of countries. However, in apparent defence of the chair, New Zealand and Canada said the draft text must remain as the basis for any further negotiations. They apparently praised the chair for her continued efforts to move the negotiations forward. “FREEZING” OUTCOMES ON AGRICULTURE At the meeting, some members pointed to the Russia-Ukraine war, which has caused a global food crisis over wheat and oil seeds among others. These members, including the European Union, appear to have suggested the need to “freeze” any outcomes on agriculture, except an agreement on transparency, at MC12. Some members apparently said that outcomes on agriculture should be excluded from MC12 in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war. But some members of the Cairns Group, particularly its coordinator Australia, want an outcome on domestic support as proposed by the chair Ambassador Peralta, whose country is a member of the Cairns Group, said people familiar with the development. In conclusion, it seems clear that unless the developing countries intensify their struggle for an outcome on the PSH issue at MC12, they may face another postponement of a decision on this issue, said people, who asked not to be quoted.
|
||
